Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction

[xero]

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It doesn't fit because that's not Nisanu 1; it's Ayyaru 1. Furuli just called it Nisanu 1 because otherwise he'd have almost nothing for the year 588. In fact, it's not really even Ayyaru 1, because he had to fake the day also and start it one day before Ayyaru 1. It's really Nisanu 30 of 588 BCE.

Check out the ACTUAL Nisanu 1, 588 BCE and see what you get. It's nowhere near.

"What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE?

Generally, Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE is assigned to around May 2nd on the Julian calendar.

Here's why:

• Babylonian Calendar: The Babylonians used a lunar calendar, meaning their months began with the first sighting of the new moon. This makes direct conversion to our modern Gregorian calendar tricky, as the dates would shift slightly each year.
• Astronomical Calculations: To pinpoint the equivalent date for Nisanu 1 in a specific year, historians and astronomers use complex astronomical calculations. These involve factors like the positions of celestial bodies and recorded lunar events from that time period.

Important Note: The precise date can vary by a day or two depending on the specific calculations and assumptions used. For most historical purposes, the approximate date of May 2nd, 588 BCE is sufficient."

Looks like May 2nd, from here.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, xero said:

"What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE?

Generally, Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE is assigned to around May 2nd on the Julian calendar.

AI models pick up what they read, and the only mention of Nisanu 1 and 588 in the same context is the claim by Furuli and supporters. Try a few other methods:

Here's a look at 588 BCE in the corresponding Hebrew calendar:

http://www.cgsf.org/dbeattie/calendar/?roman=588 BC#:~:text=September 29%2C 588 B.C.%2C 9:31 p.m.. Winter,parts%2C December 27%2C 588 B.C.%2C 9:39 a.m..

Notice that Nisanu 1 is April 5, 588 BCE not May 2, 588 BCE. 

Also, the Parker and Dubberstein (P&D) had looked at hundreds of clay tablets to see which years were leap years and after which month the intercalary month was added. You will notice that there was never any evidence that the Babylonians screwed up so badly that they ever started the New Year in May. P&D kept finding new tablets since there are thousands of them, and were able to make an updated version of the calendar in 1956 after the 1942 version. I only have the older one but it's the same here.

https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf

Notice that the Nisanu month of 588 BC started on 4/4 (April 4th) and the next month Ayyaru started on 5/4 (May 4th)

[BTK59]

The reason why 568 BC seems nonsensical is because of the way it is being approached. The argument against 607 BC made by the Korean scholar is based on a cycle that predates that date. This cycle of 19/8 years from 607 BC would end in 588/7 BC, which explains why his findings align with that period. By following the same pattern, we would arrive at 569/8 BC. This is the reason why the data does not match from 587-568 BC, as it was not intended to fit within that timeframe. The mistake lies in erroneously using VAT 4956 as a reference, which mentions the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. According to historical records, Nebuchadnezzar's reign began in 605 BC, and it would end those observations in 568 BC with that assumed cycle. 

When looking at the same scenario, the data reinforces the notion of his reign beginning in 605 BC. Some individuals theorize that by working backward from 568 BC, they would reach 587/6 BC. However, this presumption holds weight, as the same pattern also implies the potential for 588 BC from 607 BC.

So, which "cycle" does the data support? It doesn't align with Furuli's suggestion of 568 BC to 587 BC, which was his main point. It does align with the intended cycle of 607 to 588 BC. However, what we have now are disingenuous individuals distorting not only his work but also misrepresenting the findings of numerous others.
If you consult with Furuli, he will not dispute the date of 607 BC, but he will elucidate the reasons why VAT 4956 cannot be deemed a dependable tablet for any specific occurrence.
 

The key lies in understanding the cycle and how those observations truly reinforce it. It does not have support for 587 BC.

[JW Insider]

4 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

The reason why 568 BC seems nonsensical is because of the way it is being approached. . . . This cycle of 19/8 years from 607 BC would end in 588/7 BC, which explains why his findings align with that period. 

The reason why BTK59/George88 couldn't find any evidence to support this is because it doesn't exist. 

[JW Insider]

37 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

However, this presumption holds weight, as the same pattern also implies the potential for 588 BC from 607 BC.

To find Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year if you only knew that his 37th year was 568, you would KNOW that his 18th year was 587 BCE. The only reason that Furuli proposed that VAT 4956  was 20 years earlier 588 was so that his 18th year would be 607, also 20 years earler than 587. So it's a circular argument above. And it has nothing to do with "cycles." 

Here is a very similar circular argument I actually heard at a mid-week Book Study several years ago.

• Question: "How do we know that 1914 is the year Christ's presence began."
• Answer: "Because if you count forward 2,520 years from 607 you get 1914."

Another hand goes up.

• Answer: "Not only that, but if you count backwards 2,520 years from 1914 you get 607."

The conductor nodded agreeably and said, that's right, that's another way to prove it. 

 

[JW Insider]

@xero, I tried the same question in ChatGPT:

What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Nisanu 1 in the year 588 BCE?

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Determining the exact Gregorian date for Nisanu 1 in the Babylonian calendar for the year 588 BCE requires a bit of calculation since the Babylonian calendar was a lunisolar calendar that depended on the cycles of the moon and the sun. This calendar was used in Mesopotamia for centuries by various civilizations, including the Babylonians. The months began with the first sighting of the new moon, and an intercalary month was added as necessary to keep the calendar in sync with the solar year and agricultural cycles.

To find the Gregorian date equivalent for Nisanu 1 in 588 BCE, we can use the fact that the Babylonian New Year typically started with the first new moon after the spring equinox. The spring equinox usually occurs around March 20/21 in the Gregorian calendar. Therefore, Nisanu 1 would have been around the first visible new moon after this date. However, the exact date can vary based on astronomical calculations, including the observation of the moon and the equinox.

Let's perform a calculation to estimate the Gregorian date for Nisanu 1, 588 BCE. This will involve determining the date of the spring equinox and then identifying the first new moon that followed.

It seems I encountered an error trying to perform the calculation due to a limitation in my current environment. I'm unable to access the Skyfield library here, which is necessary for precise astronomical calculations. However, I can guide you through the general approach to find this date using astronomical software or online tools that provide historical astronomical data.

1. Identify the Spring Equinox of 588 BCE: The spring equinox occurs when the sun crosses the celestial equator from south to north, around March 20/21 in the Gregorian calendar. This marks the beginning of spring in the Northern Hemisphere.

2. Determine the First New Moon After the Spring Equinox: The Babylonian month of Nisanu began with the first sighting of the new moon following the spring equinox. This could vary based on the observer's location, but generally, it's possible to find this date using astronomical software by checking moon phases immediately after the equinox.

For a precise date, you would typically use astronomical software like Stellarium or websites that allow historical astronomical calculations. These tools can provide detailed lunar phase data and equinox dates back to 588 BCE.

Even without the exact calculation, it's generally understood that Nisanu 1 in 588 BCE would have fallen in late March or early April by the Gregorian calendar, depending on the precise timing of the new moon closest to the equinox. For historical and academic studies, referring to astronomical tables or software specifically designed for historical dates is recommended for the most accurate conversion.

[JW Insider]

What date is generally assigned to the Babylonian date of Ayyaru 1 in the year 588 BCE?

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

To estimate the date of Ayyaru 1 in the Babylonian calendar for the year 588 BCE in the Gregorian calendar, we start from what we know about Nisanu, the first month of the Babylonian calendar, which typically began with the new moon following the spring equinox, often placing Nisanu 1 in late March or early April.

The Babylonian calendar was lunisolar, with months beginning on the sighting of the new moon. Ayyaru, the second month, would follow Nisanu and thus would start with the next new moon. Given that a lunar month averages about 29.5 days, we can estimate the beginning of Ayyaru by adding approximately 29 to 30 days to the estimated start of Nisanu.

Without precise astronomical calculations, which I cannot perform directly at the moment, if Nisanu 1 was estimated to be in late March or early April, Ayyaru 1 would generally fall in late April or early May of the Gregorian calendar. This is a general estimation and the exact date might vary slightly based on the actual lunar cycle and the specific criteria used by Babylonian astronomers and priests for the observation of the new moon.

[JW Insider]

22 hours ago, xero said:

I'm not above throwing some unwarranted shade either.

I'm not sure if this counts as shade, but here is the expert that the Watchtower used as an authority in the article below:

*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
11. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3.

*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47.

This same expert referenced by the Watchtower as an authority actually wrote a review of Furuli's book: 

Hermann Hunger. Rolf J. Furuli, Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology. 376 pp., with numerous photos and tables. Oslo, Awatu Publishers, 22008. $ 89,00.

The other editors of AfO agree with me that the incredible collection of errors, half-truths and suspicions contained in this book must not remain uncommented. However, since it does not add to knowledge but just creates confusion, we do not want to waste our readers' patience nor the space of our journal to print a detailed review here. Such a review is available on the internet at: http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewHunger.htm; and I am ready to send it electronically to anyone who requests it.

There is only one item from my review which I want to print here because, in my opinion, it may concern the founder of this journal.  

 On p. 290f., we read: "VAT 4956 ... came to the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin in 1906 as one single entity. Someone discovered that the tablet was extremely important because it was an astronomical tablet with the hitherto oldest astronomical observations. These observations seemed to fit year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy, but a clear connection with Nebuchadnezzar II was lacking. In order to make this connection perfectly clear, the one working with the tablet used a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet, thus incising the signs for 'year 37' and 'year 38.' The first line with the name of the king was also manipulated. Because of the vibration, the tablet broke into three pieces, which were then glued together. It was discovered that the fit of the signs on both sides of the break on the reverse side was not perfect, and a grinding machine was used to try to remedy this."

And on p. 333: "VAT 4956 ... may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in modern time; the obverse side was made by the help of a mold, and the signs on the reverse side and the edges were written by someone."

This accuses an unnamed person of criminal acts: this person at least "has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs," but may even have faked half of tablet. Since the tablet reached the Vorderasiatische Museum in 1906 and was published in 1915 in the condition reflected by the photo in the Museum's archives, the accusation concerns any people working there at this time, including e.g. Ernst Weidner. In defence of him and all others possibly involved, I state that the accusation is utterly groundless, and I express my disgust of an author whose "openmindedness" leads him to such accusations.

Wien. Hermann Hunger.

 

Review Reviewed Work(s): Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology by Rolf J. Furuli Review by: Hermann Hunger Source: Archiv für Orientforschung, 2011, Bd. 52 (2011), pp. 384-385 Published by: Archiv für Orientforschung (AfO)/Institut für Orientalistik Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24595175

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The reason why BTK59/George88 couldn't find any evidence to support this is because it doesn't exist. 

Do you have written proof of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, similar to the evidence found in the Babylonian Chronicles for 598 BC, or does your admission that it doesn't exist carry any weight? lol!

[BTK59]

BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY 6926 B.C.-A.D. 45. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 924, by Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein.
Pp. xiii + 46, The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, 1942.

Every step toward a further clarification of the chronology of the Near East is most welcome, especially when it adds much new data with regard to the reigns of the kings in any particular period. Such is the service rendered by Parker and Dubberstein in their recent study.

The three chapters of the study are entitled, "The Babylonian Calendar," "King's Reigns," and "Tables for the Restatement of Babylonian Dates in Terms of the Julian Calendar." The first chapter begins with a discussion of the difference between the solar year and the lunar year which is about eleven days shorter. The use of intercalary months by the Babylonians to offset this inequality is assigned provisionally by the authors
to the middle of the eighth century B.C. during the reign of Nabonassar. There follows a list of the intercalary months mentioned in the published texts plus some notes on about a dozen as yet unattested though highly probable additional intercalary months. The chapter concludes with a chart of the different intercalary months (either a second Ululu or a second Adaru), both attested and suspected, in each nineteen-year
period from 747 B.C. to 33 A.D.

It's quite amusing to see how dreamers fiercely defend an unattainable position, particularly when they lack the necessary knowledge. It's a laugh, really!

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Do you have written proof of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, similar to the evidence found in the Babylonian Chronicles for 598 BC, or does your admission that it doesn't exist carry any weight? lol!

Nice dodge, but I'll repeat: You rely too much on the Babylonian Chronicles which happen to still be missing for the later years of Nebuchadnezzar, including Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years. But I have no reason to doubt the Bible when it associates the destruction of the Temple with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years. My admission that it is still missing carries no weight at all. But the Bible carries weight with me. I thought it should be the same for you.

And by the way,  don't know if you noticed this, but you just associated 598 with the event the Babylonian Chronicles called Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. That's the exact same thing as admitting that his 8th year must have been 597. That's the exact same thing as admitting that his 9th year must have been 596. If his 9th year was 596 then his 19th was 586. 

So you just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 586. So what year was this?

(2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.  He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem;. . .

You admit it's 586 BCE, but then you clam up or dodge the question and divert to another subject whenever someone asks you about it.
 

Edited to add: Even your own sock puppet is laughing at you.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

The chapter concludes with a chart of the different intercalary months (either a second Ululu or a second Adaru), both attested and suspected, in each nineteen-year
period from 747 B.C. to 33 A.D.

If you highlighted that sentence to point out your so-called 19-year cycle, then you are most likely extremely confused about the Metonic cycle. It became standardized after the Neo-Babylonian period so that it was well known which years had the extra month, and whether it was added after the 6th month, or the 12th month. Very few specific months were attested in the reigns of kings prior to Nabopolassar, such as during the years of Nabonassar. But from Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father), in all those years, only 12 were still unattested at the time P&D first published in 1942. And P&D made best guesses for them. Since then, more of those tablets were published and the table is now even more accurate. 

A Metonic cycle does not start in only a specific year to repeat 19 years later. It starts EVERY year and repeats 19 years later. For example:

• A Metonic cycle started in 608 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 607 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 606 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 605 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 604 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• ...
• A Metonic cycle started in 590 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 589 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 588 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 587 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.
• A Metonic cycle started in 586 BCE and repeated every 19 years after that.

Technically you don't have to start counting them from the beginning of a year, you could start them in the middle, or any particular day of the year, although it's most convenient to start from a new moon or a full moon to help count the lunations.

• Another one started the day you were born, and would repeat when you turn 19 and 38 and 57 etc
• Another one started on the day I was born in 1957 and would repeat in 1976, 1995, etc.

There is nothing special about the Metonic cycle for discovering or helping to discover a specific BCE date for a King's reign, or historical event. It just refers to the fact that the number of solar days is 365+ in a year and the number of lunar days at 12 months to a year would be 354+. So you can't add a full lunar month every year to make up the difference, but if you add an intercalary months every two or three years you will probably have added enough (+/- one lunar month) during those 19 years, to synch up the number of days in lunar years to the number in solar years much more exactly because there are almost exactly 235 lunar months in 19 solar years It's only off by a few hours.

P&D (that you quoted from) actually proves that they did NOT standardize on a set way to take advantage of the Metonic cycle, especially during Nabopolassar's and Nebuchadnezzar's reigns. But they had no choice but to synch up sooner or later, otherwise the lunar calendar would drift completely away from the solar and you'd be having the New Year 11 days earlier every year. Your spring celebration would soon be in winter, then fall, then summer, etc. You couldn't make a "planting" or "harvest" calendar.